Allegation of Research Misconduct

Damhil Law Journal (DLJ) takes research and publication integrity seriously. This policy explains how allegations about submitted or published articles are reported and handled, following COPE guidelines. An allegation is not proof of misconduct. Every case is assessed fairly and based on evidence.

1. Types of Concerns

  • Fabrication: inventing data, interviews, field findings, or legal sources.
  • Falsification: changing or omitting data, facts, or case details so that the study is misrepresented.
  • Misrepresentation of legal sources: citing statutes, court decisions, or legal opinions that do not exist or do not say what the author claims.
  • Plagiarism: using others’ words, ideas, or analysis without credit.
  • Duplicate publication: publishing overlapping work without disclosure.
  • Authorship misconduct: ghost, guest, or gift authorship.
  • Ethical breaches: missing consent from interviewees or revealing the identities of parties in disputes without permission.
  • Undisclosed conflict of interest, for example, when the author is involved in the case being analyzed.
  • Process manipulation: citation manipulation or peer review manipulation.
  • Misuse of AI: AI-generated references or legal citations that were not verified, or AI use that was not disclosed.

Differences in legal interpretation or scholarly opinion are not misconduct by themselves.

2. How to Report

Send a report to dlj@ung.ac.id with the subject “Research Integrity Concern.” Please include the article title, authors, and DOI or URL; a clear description of the concern; and supporting evidence, such as source comparisons or documents. Anonymous reports are considered if they are specific and credible.

3. How We Handle Allegations

  1. Initial assessment (within 7 working days): an editor without a conflict of interest checks whether the report is specific and supported by evidence.
  2. Author response (within 14 days): the authors are told about the concern and asked to respond, with supporting documents if needed.
  3. Decision: the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board decide based on the evidence. If needed, an independent expert is consulted or the authors’ institution is informed.
  4. Notification: the parties are informed of the outcome.

Review or publication may be paused while a serious concern is examined. This pause is not a finding of misconduct.

4. Possible Outcomes

  • Before publication: clarification or correction, further review, or rejection.
  • After publication: correction, expression of concern, retraction, or no action if the concern is not supported. Corrections and retractions follow the Corrections and Retractions section of our policy.
  • Other actions: reporting to the authors’ institution or funder, and a ban on future submissions in serious cases.

5. Confidentiality and Fairness

Information is shared only with those who need it. Complainants who report in good faith are protected from retaliation. Editors with a conflict of interest do not handle the case. If the Editor-in-Chief is involved, the publisher appoints an independent handler.

6. Appeals

Authors may appeal by email if they have new evidence, a factual error to correct, or concerns about the fairness of the procedure. The appeal is reviewed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.